• Nenhum resultado encontrado

Factors behind a Higher Education institution choice by Portuguese students

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Factors behind a Higher Education institution choice by Portuguese students"

Copied!
78
0
0

Texto

(1)

THE FACTORS INFLUENCING PORTUGUESE STUDENTS’ CHOICE

OF A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION: THE CASE OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF PORTO

Ana Sofia Teixeira Rocha

Dissertation

Master in Management

Supervised by

Luísa Helena Ferreira Pinto

(2)

i

Biographic note

Ana Sofia Teixeira Rocha was born in 1995, 5th of May, in Porto, Portugal.

In 2013 started her bachelor’s in economics at the School of Economics and Management (FEP.UP), finishing it in 2016. During those years, she was actively involved in the FEP community. She was part of EXUP - Experience Upgrade Program, whose mission is to train and develop students’ personal and social skills. She was the director of the department related with social responsibility and co-director of the international relationships department. She also integrated the Porto University Journal as part of two editorials: education and society. Furthermore, she had done an internship in a start-up located in UPTEC, in the area of marketing and social media.

In 2016, Ana started the master’s in management at FEP. For her, continuing at FEP and enrolling the master’s in management was a relatively obvious choice considering her involvement in the community and her loyalty towards the institution.

In July of the current year, Ana started her professional career at Lidl in the area of Operations and Goods Management.

(3)

ii

Acknowledgements

Writing this dissertation has been one of the greatest challenges of my academic path, but also the most enriching. It was a long journey full of challenges and setbacks, but it allowed me to achieve endless personal and academic development.

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Luísa Pinto (PhD) for being a person with a heart as great as all her knowledge. Above all, I would like to thank her for the endless patience and motivation, it was essential during the past year.

Thank you to my family, in special to my parents, who gave me all the support possible and who are always there for me. Their certainty that I would be able to overcome all the challenges, made me believe that I would.

Thank you to all my friends for all the comfort, enthusiasm and effort to try to understand what was going on in my head, it was not always easy. A special greeting to Tânia, my friend and colleague from the master’s in management, who was on this journey with me. It was a long year that had been much more difficult without you.

Finally, I would like to thank all the persons involved somehow in this journey. A special greeting to the Rectory of the University of Porto, without your help this final result would not have been possible.

(4)

iii

Abstract

The increasing competition among Higher Educations Institutions (HEIs) leads to a higher need to understand the factors influencing students to decide which institution to apply. The purpose of the present research is to understand which factors influence the choice of the University of Porto (UP) among high school students and current UP undergraduates, and which factors distinguish these two groups. Additionally, this study aims to determine the main predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates. There is no study developed in Portugal, to the best of our knowledge, considering high school students’ institutional choice and the present study intends to fill this gap. Furthermore, none of the previous studies analysed the decision at the same time from the two different points of views, considering the perspectives of both high school students and undergraduate students. To accomplish this purpose, two surveys were conducted. The first one was presented to high school students and the second survey target undergraduate students from UP. Several choice factors were listed in the literature and principal component factorial analysis (PCA) produced a solution with a 7-factors model for the selection of UP. For both students, institutional reputation is the most important factor influencing their choice. For high school students’ factors as quality of academic and social life, practical utility and facilities are also very important, while for UP undergraduate students’ overall costs are more relevant. Additionally, the regression analysis showed that the main predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates are students’ school performance and the probability of being admitted, UP reputation and institutional promotion activities. The findings of this study contribute to the literature by providing a theoretical distinction between both types of students having also practical implications to the stakeholders involved in students’ institutional choice of a higher education (HE) institution.

Keywords: Higher Education, University, students, choices JEL-Codes: I23

(5)

iv

Resumo

A crescente competição entre Instituições de Ensino Superior (IES) leva a uma maior necessidade de compreender quais os fatores que os alunos têm em consideração quando decidem que instituição escolher. O objetivo da presente pesquisa é compreender quais os fatores que influenciam a escolha da Universidade do Porto (UP) entre estudantes do ensino secundário e atuais estudantes da UP, e quais os fatores que diferenciam estes dois grupos. Além disso, este estudo tem como objetivo determinar os principais preditores da escolha da UP entre potenciais candidatos. Não existe nenhum estudo desenvolvido em Portugal, tanto quanto é do nosso conhecimento, que considere a escolha das IES por parte dos estudantes do ensino secundário e o presente estudo pretende preencher esta lacuna. Além disso, nenhum dos estudos anteriores analisou esta escolha antes e depois da decisão ter sido tomada, considerando as perspetivas dos estudantes do ensino secundário e dos estudantes que frequentam a UP. Para alcançar este objetivo, foram realizados dois questionários. O primeiro foi apresentado aos alunos do ensino secundário e o segundo inquérito foi desenvolvido para os alunos de licenciatura da Universidade do Porto. Uma análise fatorial de componentes principais (PCA) produziu uma solução que compreende sete dimensões. Para ambos os alunos, a reputação institucional é o fator mais importante nesta decisão. Para os estudantes do ensino secundário, fatores como qualidade da vida académica e social, a utilidade prática e as instalações são mais importantes; enquanto para os alunos da licenciatura, os custos gerais são mais relevantes. Além disso, a análise de regressão mostrou que os principais preditores da escolha da UP entre os potenciais candidatos são o desempenho escolar dos alunos (no ensino secundário) e a probabilidade de serem admitidos, a reputação da UP e as atividades de promoção institucional. Este estudo estabelece uma distinção teórica entre os dois tipos de alunos tendo também implicações práticas para as partes envolvidas na escolha dos alunos de uma instituição de ensino superior (IES).

Palavras-chave: Ensino Superior, Universidade, estudantes, escolhas JEL-Códigos: I23

(6)

v

Table of contents

Biographic note ... i Acknowledgements ... ii Abstract ... iii Resumo ... iv Table of contents ... v

List of Tables ... vii

Table of Figures ... viii

1. Introduction ... 1

2. Literature review ... 4

2.1. The Portuguese Higher Education System ... 4

2.2. The University of Porto (UP) ... 5

2.3. The Choice Factors of a Higher Education Institution ... 5

2.3.1 Internal Factors ... 9

2.3.2 Social Influence ... 11

2.3.3 Institutional Factors ... 12

2.3.4 Other Relevant Factors ... 15

2.4. Choice predictors of UP Institutional Choice: Implications of the literature ... 17

3. Theoretical model and hypothesis ... 21

4. Methodology ... 23

4.1. Methodological Approach ... 23

(7)

vi

4.3. Questionnaire Design and Measures ... 24

4.4. Sample Characteristics ... 25

4.5. Data Analysis ... 26

5. Results ... 28

5.1. Which factors influence the choice of UP? ... 28

5.2. Which factors distinguish high school students from UP undergraduate students?... ... 32

5.3. Which factors are the main predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates?. ... 32

6. Discussion ... 36

6.1. Factors influencing the choice of UP ... 36

6.2. Factors distinguishing high school students from UP undergraduate students .. 37

6.3. The main predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates ... 38

7. Conclusion ... 41

7.1. Limitations and Research Suggestions... 41

7.2. Practical Contributions ... 43

References ... 45

(8)

vii

List of Tables

Table 1- Factors influencing students’ choice of a HEI ... 9 Table 2– Other factors influencing students’ choice of a HEI ... 16 Table 3 - The influence of the 39 items in the institutional choice by sample and subsamples ... 29 Table 4 - Component matrix factor loadings for the factors influencing the selection of a HEI. ... 31

Table 5 - Components significantly differentiating High School students and UP students ... 32 Table 6 - Summary statistics and zero-order correlations. ... 33 Table 7 - Regression of hypothesized relationships between the independent variables and UP institutional choice ... 34

Table 8 - Regression of hypothesized relationships between other variables and UP institutional choice ... 35

(9)

viii

Table of Figures

Figure 1 - Chapman model of students’ college choice adapted ... 6 Figure 2 - Ming conceptual framework of the institutional factors that can influence students’ college choice ... 7

(10)

1

1. Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEIs) face several challenges (Simões & Soares, 2010) in an environment that is rapidly changing. Following the Portuguese revolution in 1974, the higher education (HE) system expanded fast, but in the last years, this tendency is growing even faster. At the beginning of this century, 6.5% of the total Portuguese population had a higher education course, in parallel with the 17.8% that in the last year had the same degree of education (PORDATA, 2017a). An important transformation in this sector occurred in 2009 with the completed implementation of the Process of Bologna and the introduction of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) (DGES, 2017a). The harmonization between different academic degrees and the increasing mobility of students and teachers conducted to an increasing competition between higher education institutions, namely in Portugal (Raposo & Alves, 2007; Simões & Soares, 2010).

Nowadays the Portuguese HE system is expected to be more than just the sum of educational institutions; it is expected to use its resources in an efficient way and to make a difference to the labour market and to the economy, assuming a consumer-friendly attitude (Tavares & Cardoso, 2013). Higher education institutions seek to attract and retain high-quality students (Simões & Soares, 2010), developing more sophisticated marketing plans, more appealing programs and providing better institutional information (Chapman, 1981). Understanding what influences the choice of the students and being able to highlight the institution uniqueness and strengths can be one of the most effective ways of having success in this competitive environment (Abubakar et al., 2010; Kusumawati et al., 2010). On the other hand, for students, the decision of which institution to choose is a difficult and complex task since that decision can possibly change their lives (Kusumawati et al, 2010; Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2015; Veloutsou et al., 2004). It is an investment essential to their professional qualification (Avram, 2012) and a “stressful life event” (Barry et al., 2009) since this decision will affect several years of their lives (Avram, 2012; Brown et al., 2009; Dunnett et al., 2012; Simões & Soares, 2010). Therefore, the risk of making a wrong decision is also considered (Moogan et al., 1999; Simões & Soares, 2010).

(11)

2 Understanding which factors influence students’ choice of an HE institution is relevant, given its complexity and lifelong impact. Most studies (e.g. Briggs, 2006; Imenda et al., 2004; Joseph et al., 2012; Obermeit, 2012; Rudhumbu et al., 2017; Saif et al., 2017) have analysed this decision à posteriori, which means that the students were inquired after they had already made the choice. Only a few studies considered high school students’ institution choice (Drewes & Michael, 2006; Moogan et al., 1999; Soutar & Turner, 2002; Veloutsou et al., 2004) and most disregarded the factors influencing potential candidates.

Some studies were developed in Portugal (Cardoso et al., 2011; Raposo & Alves, 2007; Simões & Soares, 2010; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008), which addressed the main reasons and motivations for a student to pursue studies, select a course programme and to choose a specific institution. However, to the best of our knowledge, none considered high school students’ institutional choice, especially among potential candidates. The present study fills this research gap by inquiring Portuguese students before and after making the decision. This study considers the perspectives of both UP-potential candidates, notably high school students attending a UP event (e.g. Mostra da UP) and UP undergraduate students. It examines the similarities and differences between these two groups. Additionally, this study aims to determine the main predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates.

The present study targets the University of Porto for two main reasons. First, the University of Porto has been attaining high levels of success within a context of fierce competition. For instance, in 2018, UP was classified in first place in the national ranking and 301º worldwide in the QS World University Rankings. Second, UP was selected because of the convenience of collecting data.

Given this context, this research addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: Which factors influence the choice of University of Porto among high school students? RQ2: Which factors influenced the choice of University of Porto among current undergraduate students?

RQ3: Which factors distinguish high school students from UP undergraduate students? RQ4: Which factors are the main predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates?

This study follows a quantitative approach and two surveys were conducted. The first one was presented to potential candidates - high school students attending the UP Open day - and

(12)

3 the second survey target UP current undergraduate students. Overall, 1073 Portuguese high school students and 678 undergraduate students participated in this research. The findings contribute to the literature about the factors of HE institutional choice and reveal more detail about the similarities and differences between these groups.

This document is organized as follows: after this introduction, chapter 2 develops the concepts relevant to the theme, presents the Portuguese Higher Education System and list the factors known to influence a HE institution choice. Chapter 3 presents the theoretical model and hypothesis, while chapter 4 describes the methodology used. Chapter 5 presents the results which are further discussed in chapter 6. Finally, the theoretical and practical contributions, limitations and suggestions for further research are presented in the last chapter.

(13)

4

2. Literature review

2.1. The Portuguese Higher Education System

The HE system in Portugal is divided into public and private institutions: universities and polytechnics. As previously mentioned, after the Portuguese revolution in 1974, the HE system expanded rapidly. Social pressures and the necessity to converge to some of the others European countries lead to the expansion of the Portuguese HE system with the opening of the private sector and the creation of polytechnics (Tavares & Ferreira, 2012). Nowadays considering both the public and private sectors there are 49 universities, 69 polytechnics, 19 Higher Schools and 5 institutions of military HE (Universia, 2018).

In the last year, there were 113.927 entrances on universities and polytechnics, of which a huge part chose universities (71.186 students) instead of polytechnics. Also, and according to data from PORDATA (2017b), in 2017 there were 94.935 students choosing a public institution. Applications to public institutions in the Portuguese HE system are administrated by the General Directorate for Higher Education (Simões & Soares, 2010). The application process occurs in three separated phases, respectively in July, September and October (DGES, 2017b). Students can apply to six pairs of institutions or courses (DGES, 2017c) and they are selected based on their high school performance and national exams grades (Portela et al., 2009). Students are allocated according to their relative performance and the number of openings in each programme and institution (Simões & Soares, 2010). Also, in Portugal, anecdotal evidence shows that since the application to HEI is limited by students’ academic performance, especially in health and engineering courses, the admissions are extremely competitive and students sometimes are not allocated to their first choice, leading them to another programme or another institution.

Nowadays with the increasing competition for students in the Portuguese labour market, they think that having a degree is essential for their future and that factor increases their value and gives them a competitive advantage (Tavares & Ferreira, 2012). On the other hand, not having a degree will block their options to freely organize their future (Tavares & Ferreira, 2012).

(14)

5

2.2. The University of Porto (UP)

UP is located in Porto and was created in 1911. It is composed of 14 faculties, one business school and more than 50 centres of investigation. There are three different campuses: downtown Porto, Asprela and Campo Alegre (University of Porto, 2018).

It is the most international of all the Portuguese universities contemplating partnerships with hundreds of other HE institutions all over the world (University of Porto, 2018). It is also on the top 150 of the best European Universities in some of the most important international rankings of Higher Education, with the objective to be on the top 100 of the best universities in the world until 2020 (University of Porto, 2018). For instance, in 2018, UP was classified in first place in the national ranking and 301º worldwide in the QS World University Rankings.

The University of Porto followed the Process of Bologna encompassing all levels of education: undergraduate – 1st cycle, integrated master, master and PhD (University of Porto,

2018). UP reinforces the high quality of teaching with a highly qualified teaching staff and the status of developing major scientific contributions in Portugal (University of Porto, 2018).

It is one of the most prestigious Portuguese universities offering to potential candidates and current students’ several events allowing a direct contact with various companies and employers, thus attaining a high employment rate. Furthermore, applies the knowledge of their students at the disposal of the community providing a wide diversity of services such as clinical analysis or veterinary services (University of Porto, 2018). The University of Porto is a major economic, social and cultural developer in the country, especially in the North region.

2.3. The Choice Factors of a Higher Education Institution

Choice factors are all the relevant factors able to influence the process of decision-making when students apply to a HEI (Simões & Soares, 2010). Two models have been used to address this decision-making process: Chapman (1981) model and, more recently, the Ming (2010) model.

The longitudinal model developed by Chapman (1981) analysed the students’ choice when deciding the higher education institution to go. This model suggests that it is necessary to consider students’ background, current characteristics, students’ family and institutional characteristics. It is a model of college choice that has been created to understand the decision

(15)

6 making of prospective students (aged between 18 to 21 years old) (Chapman, 1981), although most studies have target undergraduate students (e.g. Nora, 2004; Kusumawati et al., 2010). To the best of our knowledge, this model was never been applied to high school students, which is addressed in this research.

According to Chapman (1981) model, as illustrated in Figure 1, students’ institution choice can be influenced by internal factors, which include students’ characteristics, and several external factors. The internal factors that influence students’ institution choice are socioeconomic status, aptitude, level of educational aspiration/expectation and high school performance. The external factors are divided into significant persons, relatively fixed college characteristics and college efforts to communicate with students. The combination and interactions between internal and external factors shape students’ institution choice.

Source: Chapman (1981, p.492).

Figure 1 - Chapman model of students’ college choice adapted

Student characteristics

SES Level of educational

aspiration Aptitude

High School performance

External influences

Significant persons  Friends  Parents

 High school personnel Fixed college characteristics

 Cost (financial aid)  Location

 Availability of program College efforts to communicate with students  Written information  Campus visit  Admissions/recruiting Student’s choice of college(s)

(16)

7 A more recent conceptual framework was developed by Ming (2010) who aimed to determine the factors influencing the college choice. This conceptual framework was used by some authors (e.g. Avram, 2012; Rudhumbu et al., 2017) and has similarities with the Chapman (1981) model, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Source: Ming (2010, p. 55).

Figure 2 - Ming conceptual framework of the institutional factors that can influence students’ college choice

Ming’s conceptual framework also considers institutional factors, however, excludes other important variables as the internal characteristics of the students and significant person opinions. Since this research aims to attain a deeper understanding of the factors influencing high school students and current undergraduate students HEI choice it is important not to exclude variables that can be relevant. To this purpose, some new institutional factors considered in the Ming (2010) model were added to the Chapman (1981) model, as college reputation, educational facilities and employment opportunities.

Independent variables

Dependent variable

Fixed College Characteristics  Location

 Academic programmes  College reputation  Educational facilities  Cost

 Availability of financial aid  Employment opportunities

College Effort to Communicate with students.  Advertising  HEIs representatives  Campus visit College Choice decision

(17)

8 Table 1 summarizes the factors indicated so far, as influencing students’ choice of a HEI. The table is divided into three main categories: internal factors, social influence and institutional factors.

Factor

Authors

Internal factors

Socioeconomic status Callender & Jackson, 2008; Chapman, 1981; Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2015; Perna & Titus, 2004; Tavares et al., 2008

Aptitude and high school performance

Chapman, 1981; Drewes & Michael, 2006; Imenda et al., 2004; Leslie, 2003; López-Bonilla et al., 2012; Nora, 2004; Simões & Soares, 2010

Social influence

Family Opinions Abubakar et al., 2010; Chapman, 1981; Cho et al., 2008; Dunnett et al., 2012; Joseph et al., 2012; Mastekaasa & Smeby, 2008; Moogan et al., 1999; Raposo & Alves, 2007; Tavares et al., 2008

Friends’ Opinions Abubakar et al., 2010; Chapman, 1981; Joseph et al., 2012; Price et al., 2003; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008

Institutional factors

Costs Abubakar et al., 2010; Bonnema & Van der Weldt, 2008;

Callender & Jackson, 2008; Chapman, 1981; Cho et al., 2008; Drewes & Michael 2006; Imenda et al. 2004; Obermeit, 2012; Pasternak, 2005; Saif et al., 2017; Raposo & Alves, 2007; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008

Financial aid Chapman; 1981; Cho et al., 2008; Drewes & Michael, 2006; Imenda et al., 2004; Obermeit, 2012; Perna & Titus, 2004

Location Abubakar et al., 2010; Briggs, 2006; Callender & Jackson, 2008; Chapman, 1981; Drewes & Michael, 2006; Hoyt &

(18)

9

Factor

Authors

Howell, 2012; Imenda et al., 2004; Joseph et al., 2012; Pasternak, 2005; Raposo & Alves, 2007; Simões & Soares, 2010

Availability of the desired course program

Chapman, 1981; Rudhumbu et al., 2017; Veloutsou et al., 2004

University reputation Abubakar et al., 2010; Avram, 2012; Brown et al., 2009; Briggs, 2006; Dunnett et al., 2012; Imenda et al., 2004; Joseph et al., 2012; Moogan & Baron, 2003; Obermeit, 2012; Pasternak, 2005; Price et al., 2003; Rudhumbu et al., 2017; Saif et al., 2017; Simões & Soares, 2010; Soutar & Turner, 2002; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Veloutsou et al., 2004

Educational facilities Avram, 2012; Cho et al., 2008; Joseph et al., 2012; Price et al., 2003; Rudhumbu et al., 2017; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008; Veloutsou et al., 2004

Employment prospects Briggs, 2006; Bonnema & Van der Weldt, 2008; López-Bonilla et al., 2012; Rudhumbu et al., 2017; Soutar & Turner, 2002; Tavares et al., 2008; Veloutsou et al., 2004

Institutional promotion and information

Bonnema & Van der Weldt, 2008; Briggs, 2006; Briggs & Wilson, 2007; Brown et al., 2009; Chapman, 1981; Joseph et al., 2012; Rudhumbu et al., 2017; Said et al., 2016; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008

Source: Author own elaboration

Table 1- Factors influencing students’ choice of a HEI

2.3.1 Internal Factors

Previous studies explored the embeddedness of this decision in the family, including family income and background, social culture and previous performance (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka,

(19)

10 2015). Moreover, students’ histories (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2015) and life plans (Tavares & Ferreira, 2012) influence their choices, as described following.

Socioeconomic Status

Students from families with different socioeconomic status distribute themselves in a different way considering the type of institution - university or polytechnics (Chapman, 1981) and students from lower socioeconomic status have a lower probability to enrol in any type of institution (Perna & Titus, 2004).

Other studies (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2015; Tavares et al., 2008) confirmed this trend also between students that come from families with a higher education background and the ones that come from families with poor levels of education. Tavares et al. (2008) analysed the family educational background impact on the moment to decide between universities or polytechnics and found that in Portugal the ones coming from a higher educational family background prefer to go to a university. The family income also has an impact on this choice. Tavares et al. (2008) also found that Portuguese students from lower income families tend to prefer polytechnics. The highest percentage of students from families with lower family income are admitted in polytechnics (Tavares et al. 2008). Similarly, students from families with lower incomes tend to attend institutions with less prestige (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2015) and this interacts with costs and financial aid, influencing what students think that are their real options (Chapman, 1981).

According to these findings, one would expect that the selection of UP will be affected by students’ socioeconomic status, notably family income and educational background.

Aptitude and High School Performance

According to Chapman (1981), aptitude has a direct impact on the choice of the institution, as it influences the results obtained from the exams required to enter higher education. In the study developed by Simões & Soares (2010), “academic aptitude” was measured through the high school performance, showing a link between those two variables.

Usually, prospective students use their performance to estimate their chances of admission to an institution (Chapman, 1981; Nora, 2004). According to Chapman (1981), performance

(20)

11 could set a lot of other effects, e.g., students with better results tend to be more encouraged to pursue their education and also have more chances to obtain a scholarship.

There is evidence that students with lower grades behave differently than the ones with higher grades (Drewes & Michael, 2006; Leslie, 2003). Students with lower school grades choose not to apply to those institutions with lower chances of being admitted, being aware of their probabilities of admission and using that information to make strategic application decisions (Drewes & Michael, 2006). Students tend to do an initial selection matching their performance with the requirements of the institution (Nora, 2004). Also, in Portugal, anecdotal evidence shows that the application to HEI is limited by students’ academic performance, especially in health and engineering courses. Given this evidence, one would expect that both high school students and current undergraduate students will refer the academic performance as one factor influencing the selection of UP.

2.3.2 Social Influence

Students are strongly affected by the opinions of other persons, as family and friends (e.g. Abubakar et al., 2010; Chapman, 1981; Joseph et al., 2012; Price et al., 2003; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008). These significant persons can influence them in different ways: they can shape their expectations about how that institution is; they can advise them about which institution to choose and, in the case of friends, the institution they choose can socially influence students’ choice (Chapman, 1981).

To most authors, parents have the most important role (e.g. Abubakar et al., 2010; Chapman, 1981; Joseph et al., 2012; Mastekaasa & Smeby, 2008; Tavares et al., 2008). In this case, there is an interaction with other factors, such as the cost of the institution, because the financial aspect can influence parents’ perception and opinion and consequently students’ choice (Chapman, 1981). There is also evidence that family education is an important factor that affects students’ choices (Dunnett et al., 2012). Even when parents do not give a direct advice, they can act as role models influencing students’ preferences (Mastekaasa & Smeby, 2008). Overall, the student socialization process seems to be essential in shaping students’ preferences given their youth stage (Tavares & Ferreira, 2012). Given this evidence, one would expect that the selection of UP will be affected by social influence.

(21)

12

2.3.3 Institutional Factors

In this category, Chapman (1981) and Ming (2010) included the factors that are under the direct influence of the HEI, despite being modifiable mostly in the long-term. In the short-term, these factors are relatively fixed and tend to define the institution. These factors include (not exclusively): costs, financial aid, location, courses offer, reputation, facilities, employment prospects, and promotional initiatives.

Costs

Through the literature, the cost is one of the most referred factors related to institutional choice (as observed in Table 1). Some of the costs referred by the students are: travel expenses, living expenses, tuition fees and accommodation (Briggs & Wilson, 2007). Often, a high tuition fee leads to the perception of higher benefits, e.g., a better teaching quality (Pasternak, 2005).

According to Dunnett et al. (2012), the advantages of pursuing studies to higher education have a less perceived value to students which family has no higher educational background. Furthermore, in the case of an increase of tuition fees, the impact to those students are higher, affecting their decision and influencing them to choose a less expensive option (Dunnett et al., 2012).

To students of lower socioeconomic status, the concern of financial constraints really affects the decision, making them choose institutions near the family home or with lower living costs (Callender & Jackson, 2008). To Chapman (1981), the importance of cost cannot be separated from the influence of financial aid.

Financial aid

This factor has received a lot of attention in the field. On one hand, costs are an obstacle to college choice but, on the other hand, financial aid can reduce or even eliminate the problem (Chapman, 1981). The existence of scholarships opportunities or any form of financial aid is pointed out as an important factor considered by students (Chapman, 1981; Drewes & Michael, 2006; Imenda et al., 2004). Sometimes students even consider loans for study opportunities and financial aid is a way to increase the range of possibilities for some students (Perna & Titus, 2004).

(22)

13

Location

It has been pointed by several authors (e.g. Abubakar et al., 2010; Briggs, 2006; Chapman, 1981; Imenda et al., 2004; Joseph et al., 2012; Pasternak, 2005; Raposo & Alves, 2007; Simões & Soares, 2010) as one of the most important factors influencing the institution decision.

According to Chapman (1081), it is relevant to consider the geographical area that is being analysed, since students in an area with many options are less available to travel far when compared to other students in a rural area without many options. Once again, there is an interaction between the factor cost and the family income that affects students’ geographical mobility (Chapman, 1981). Staying at home is one possibility to reduce expenses (Simões & Soares, 2010), so UP is more likely to be selected by students living in the North region.

Therefore, it is expected that overall institutional costs are relevant factors in choosing UP for high school students and current undergraduate students. The overall institutional costs can include direct costs as tuition fees but also costs related to location and proximity to home as travel expenses, living expenses and accommodation.

Availability of desired courses program

Availability of a course program and future benefits are important aspects that a student considers when choosing an institution (Chapman, 1981; Rudhumbu et al., 2017). Students also consider the content of the program and the learning experience (Veloutsou et al., 2004). According to Soutar and Turner (2002), their preferences are more influenced by course suitability than family opinion or distance from home. Usually, students choose a university in which they will find the course they want, thinking also about the future after pursuing studies (Chapman, 1981).

University Reputation

Reputation can be seen by some students as a perception of the quality of education, while for others is related with name recognition (Joseph et al., 2012). Several authors refer to this as one of the most relevant factors influencing students’ choice (as observed in Table 1). Even

(23)

14 Chapman (1981) reported on the difficulty of changing the long-term image and reputation of the institutions.

It is important that the institution builds a respectable reputation to continuously attract students (Imenda et al., 2004). Students consider the reputation of the university in general but also the reputation of a specific programme (Veloutsou et al., 2004).

In Portugal, public universities seem to have a better reputation than the other subsystems (private and polytechnics) and students seem to prefer a public university over the other options (Tavares, 2013). This better reputation can be related with a higher selectivity, considering that public universities require higher grades of entrance, which shapes students’ perceptions (Tavares, 2013). Since public universities are at the top of the hierarchy and in the case of UP, given its national and international reputation, one would expect that UP reputation will be considered important by high school students and current UP undergraduate students.

Educational Facilities

Students actively seek information about the university facilities, like the library or the computer facilities (Veloutsou et al., 2004). Other factors as the counselling services (Veloutsou et al., 2004), a “student-friendly attitude” and a good environment (Price et al., 2003) can also be important.

Employment Prospects

Job opportunities is another factor considered by students (e.g. Bonnema & Van der Weldt, 2008; López-Bonilla et al., 2012 and Rudhumbu et al., 2017). Students also consider the average earnings of the graduates from that institution or the rate of employability within one year (López-Bonilla et al., 2012; Veloutsou et al., 2004). It is also important to consider that holding a degree possibly could not be enough and the institution itself can affect the probability of employment (Imenda et al., 2004).

Institutional Promotion and Information

According to Chapman (1981), institutions should apply marketing principles in order to attract students that may not consider that option otherwise. HEIs should research the market

(24)

15 position, establish a marketing plan and develop new strategies related to the programs and the communication process.

Marketing strategies used by universities can influence students’ choice (Rudhumbu et al., 2017) however, it is important to underline that each student is different, and therefore, a market segmentation is required to better approach each case (Brown et al., 2009; Raposo & Alves, 2007; Simões & Soares, 2010; Wilkins et al., 2012). Previous studies indicated a mismatch between the information provided by the institution and the information that potential applicants really need, and often, students think that the information provided is inadequate for their needs too (Briggs, 2006). Universities do not seem to be really careful with the information they provide (Briggs & Wilson, 2007).

Considering the diverse alternatives to attract students, there is some disagreement about which are the most effective. The university prospectus and open days are the most effective strategies for Briggs (2006) and Briggs & Wilson (2007), while career fairs and advertising also play a significant role (Rudhumbu et al., 2017). The internet is the most used form of information collection (e.g. Briggs & Wilson, 2007; Brown et al., 2009; Simões & Soares, 2010; Veloutsou et al., 2004). However, students usually contrast its information with other information sources, e.g., friends and other students’ opinions or their high school teachers, assuming they have “inside” information (Joseph et al., 2012; Simões & Soares, 2010; Tavares & Cardoso, 2013). The word of mouth information is relevant and acts as a way to reduce the risk of a wrong decision (Moogan et al., 1999; Briggs & Wilson, 2007).

In Portugal, and regarding UP, there is not much information about the effectiveness of existing promotional tools. However, it is likely that this factor will be considered important by high school students and current UP undergraduate students.

2.3.4 Other Relevant Factors

There are several multiple factors affecting the selection of a HEI, which is expectedly different for each student (Avram, 2012; Kusumawati et al., 2010). In addition to the ones aforementioned, other factors have been found to influence this decision, as summarized in Table 2.

(25)

16

Factors Authors

Administrative support Imenda et al. (2004); Tavares et al. (2008);

Career prospects Imenda et al. (2004), Perna & Titus (2004), Veloutsou et al. (2004)

Entrance standards

Briggs (2006); Callender & Jackson (2008); Leslie (2003); Moogan et al., (1999); Pasternak (2005); Tavares et al. (2008)

Possibility of combining study with work

Price et al. (2003); Tavares et al. (2008); Veloutsou et al. (2004)

Quality of academic life Callender & Jackson, (2008); Tavares & Ferreira (2012); Tavares et al.(2008),

Scientific research quality Drewes & Michael (2006); Tavares et al. (2008),

Social prestige Callender & Jackson (2008); Tavares et al. (2008); Tavares et al. (2012)

Teaching quality

Abubakar et al., (2010); Briggs, (2006); Cho et al., (2008); Dunnett et al., (2012); Imenda et al. (2004); Rudhumbu et al., (2017); Saif et al., (2017); Soutar & Turner (2002); Tavares et al. (2008),

Source: Author own elaboration

Table 2– Other factors influencing students’ choice of a HEI

The list presented in Table 2 includes factors not included in the Chapman (1981) and Ming’s (2010) models, factors considered generally less relevant than the ones presented before.

Teaching reputation (Price et al., 2003) and entrance standards (Leslie, 2003) are included. Students with higher performance tend to opt for courses that have higher reputation and entrance standards (Leslie, 2003). The academic life, including the social life, the university’s unions and the nightlife are also relevant (Veloutsou et al., 2004). Those psychological factors and a correspondence between the students’ social and psychological needs can be important

(26)

17 but not as important as other factors such as the financial considerations (Barry et al. 2009). However, according to Nora (2004):

“Feeling accepted, safe and comfortable in a new academic and social setting is a quality of the college choice process that has greater relevance for students making their final decision than other factors such as institutional quality, location, diversity or cost”.

2.4. Choice predictors of UP Institutional Choice: Implications of the

literature

The purpose of the present research is to understand which factors influence the choice of UP among high school students and current UP undergraduates, and which factors distinguish these two groups. Additionally, this study aims to determine the main predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates. So far, no earlier investigation addressed these aims despite the extensive literature about the factors influencing HEI choice, as presented before. Starting from there, the factors most referred throughout the literature are considered. However, it is important to highlight that (a) different HE contexts are likely to elicit different findings, since most findings refer to countries not located in Europe in which HE is substantially different (Sin & Amaral, 2017); (b) earlier research has not compared the factors influencing the choice of a HEI among potential candidates and current students; and (c) there is contradictory evidence, even from similar settings, regarding the influence of several factors. For instance, Jung (2013) in Australia, did not find support for the influence of students’ aptitude, aspirations, parents background and institutional information, which were key elements of the Chapman (1981) model.

In Portugal, some studies were developed (Cardoso et al., 2011; Raposo & Alves, 2007; Simões & Soares, 2010; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008), which addressed the main reasons and motivations for a student to pursue studies, select a course programme and to choose a specific institution. Considering the last subject the most important findings are regarding the influence of family educational background and income on the institutional choice (Tavares et al. 2008), that students are influenced by the opinions of others (Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008) and that often students choose an economical option instead of the

(27)

18 one they really prefer (Tavares & Cardoso, 2013). The proximity to home is an important factor for Portuguese students since it allows cost savings (Simões & Soares, 2010; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares & Cardoso, 2013).

However, to the best of our knowledge, none considered high school students’ institutional choice, especially among potential candidates. The present study fills this research gap by inquiring Portuguese students before and after making the institution choice. Therefore, the choice of UP is expected to be influenced by internal factors, social factors, and institutional factors according to the theoretical model presented in Figure 3.

Internal factors of UP Choice

Tavares et al. (2008) analysed the influence of family educational background and income, finding that in Portugal students coming from a higher educational family background and higher income prefer to go to a university (over a polytechnic).

Therefore, one would expect that UP choice will be positively associated with students’ family educational background and income, as stated:

H1: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with students’

family (a) educational background and (b) income.

There is evidence that students with lower grades behave differently than the ones with higher grades (Drewes & Michael, 2006). Students with lower school grades choose not to apply to those universities with lower chances of being admitted, being aware of their probabilities of admission and using that information to make strategic application decisions (Drewes & Michael, 2006). Also, in Portugal, the application to HEI is limited by students’ academic performance, especially in health and engineering courses, so one expects that the probability of being admitted will be a relevant factor, as follows:

H2: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with (a) students’

school performance and (b) the probability of being admitted.

Social factors of UP Choice

Students are strongly affected by the opinions of other persons, as family, friends and teachers (e.g. Abubakar et al., 2010; Chapman, 1981; Joseph et al., 2012; Price et al., 2003; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares et al., 2008). According to Chapman (1981), the social

(28)

19 influence can determine which institution students choose, also shaping the expectations that students have. Therefore, in the case of UP, one can expect that:

H3: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with social

influence.

Institutional factors of UP Choice

The most relevant institutional factors include university costs, location, reputation, and promotion and information initiatives. Through the literature, the cost has been one of the most referred factors related to institution choice, being associated with the proximity to home and institutional location. Students’ concerns about financial constraints affect the decision, often leading to the selection of institutions near the family home or with lower living costs (e.g. Callender & Jackson, 2008; Pasternak, 2005; Raposo & Alves, 2007; Simões & Soares, 2010). Often students choose an economical option instead of the one they really prefer (Tavares & Cardoso, 2013) considering all the possible costs involved: travel expenses, living expenses, tuition fees and accommodation (Briggs & Wilson, 2007). The proximity to home is an important factor for Portuguese students too since it allows cost savings (Simões & Soares, 2010; Tavares & Ferreira, 2012; Tavares & Cardoso, 2013). In the case of UP, one expects that overall institutional costs will be negatively associated with students’ choice, as follows:

H4: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is negatively associated with overall

institutional costs.

Several authors (e.g. Abubakar et al., 2010; Obermeit, 2012 and Veloutsou et al., 2004) refer to the reputation as one of the most relevant factors influencing students’ choice and it is important that the institution builds a respectable reputation to continuously attract students (Imenda et al., 2004). In Portugal, public universities seem to have a better reputation than the other subsystems (private and polytechnics) and students seem to prefer a public university over the other options (Tavares, 2013). Since public universities are at the top of the hierarchy and in the case of UP, given its national and international reputation, one expects this factor to be one of the key factors for the institutional choice:

H5: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with UP

(29)

20 In Portugal, there is not much information about the effectiveness of existing HE promotional tools. However, university prospectus, open days (Briggs, 2006; Briggs & Wilson, 2007), career fairs and advertising (Rudhumbu et al., 2017), websites (Brown et al., 2009; Simões & Soares, 2010; Veloutsou et al., 2004) and word of mouth information are relevant approaches to attract students, so one expects a positive influence of these factors also in the case of UP:

H6: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with institutional

(30)

21

3. Theoretical model and hypothesis

The present study aims to understand what drives the choice of UP among high school students and current UP undergraduates, and which factors distinguish these two groups. Additionally, this study aims to determine the main predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates.

Regarding the factors influencing high school students versus current undergraduates, the existing literature is not sufficiently informative to assist in predicting significant differences between these groups, so to this aim, this study remains descriptive and no hypothesis is proposed.

Considering the main predictors of UP institutional choice by potential candidates the following diagram shows the theoretical model of this study and summarises the research hypothesis.

Figure 3 – Theoretical model (b) Probability of being admitted

Reputation Institutional Promotion (a) Family educational background

(a) Students' school performance

Social influence Overall institutional costs (b) Family income Higher Education institutional choice H1+ H2+ H3+ H5+ H6+ H4

(31)

-22

H1: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with students’

family (a) educational background and (b) income

H2: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with (a) students’

school performance and (b) the probability of being admitted.

H3: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with social

influence.

H4: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is negatively associated with overall

institutional costs

H5: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with UP

reputation.

H6: UP institutional choice by potential candidates is positively associated with institutional

(32)

23

4. Methodology

4.1. Methodological Approach

The present study aims to understand what influences the choice of UP among high school students and current UP undergraduates, and which factors distinguish these two groups. In addition, aims to understand which factors predict UP institutional choice among potential candidates. To accomplish these aims, a quantitative method was used to identify the factors influencing the choice of UP and assist in the understanding of possible relationships among variables (Malhotra, 2010). Two surveys were conducted. The first one (Survey 1) was presented to high school students with the objective to understand the factors that would make them choose a HEI, notably UP. The second survey (Survey 2) was target to current undergraduate students attending a bachelor’s degree in the University of Porto aimed to understand the factors that made them choose this HEI. A survey method was used because it is a cost-effective way to gather large amounts of data (Malhotra, 2010) from a geographically dispersed sample, making easier the comparison of results (Saunders et al., 2016).

4.2. Procedures of Data Collection

The process of data collection was different for the two groups of students.

The first survey targeted the high school students attending a specific event organized by the University of Porto: “Mostra da UP” (see Annexe I for more details about the survey). The students were approached randomly and invited to participate in this research by answering a paper-pencil survey. After being assured of the anonymity of the answers and asked for consent, all respondents were invited to fill in a paper-pencil survey about their intentions to pursue studies and choose UP. After giving consent, respondents were asked which faculty/university they intend to apply. After that, they were asked to rate a series of factors that could be important for choosing UP. Since the answers were obtained in paper-pencil format, it was necessary to insert them into the SPSS program in order to run further statistical analysis.

The second survey targets current UP undergraduates and data were collected through an online survey sent by the Rectory of the UP. The invitation message contained a brief explanation of the study scope and a declaration of confidentiality (see Annexe II for more

(33)

24 details). The survey was available online, through the following link: https://goo.gl/forms/88fTiXRVieliMsWd2. After giving consent, respondents were asked which faculty of the University of Porto they attend, the course, the current GPA, the year of the first registration and if the University of Porto were their first choice. After that, they were asked to rate a series of factors related to the selection of UP.

Given that the target of this research were Portuguese students, the surveys were made available in Portuguese. Both surveys were piloted-tested with a group of similar respondents to ensure the clarity and meaning of the items and the survey adequacy. Through the feedback obtained, some minor modifications were made and the final versions were delivered in paper (survey 1) and online (survey 2). Data from survey 1 was collected during the “Mostra da UP” – days 12 to 15 of April 2018, and data from survey 2 was collected during April 2018.

4.3. Questionnaire Design and Measures

In this study, both surveys included mainly closed questions, with some exceptions like residence or high school institution. While in survey 2 all questions were made mandatory, this was not possible to control with survey 1, since it was delivered in paper.

In both surveys, students were asked to rate a set of 39 influencing factors by using a 7-point Likert response scale, ranging from (1) not important to (7) extremely important. Table 3 lists the 39 items used in both surveys, which combine the factors reported in the literature (e.g. Chapman, 1981; Ming, 2010).

The dependent variable of UP institutional choice included in Survey 1 (target to high school students) was measured using a 4-item scale adapted from Carmeli & Gefen (2005) and from Nguyen & Leblanc (2001). Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they agree with the statements through a five-point Likert-scale (1= totally disagree and 5 = totally agree). The four items were: “Penso muitas vezes em estudar na Universidade do Porto”, “Estou ativamente à procura de um curso para estudar na Universidade do Porto”, “Logo que possível começarei a estudar na Universidade do Porto” and “A Universidade do Porto irá ser a minha primeira opção”. The internal consistency of this scale (Cronbach alfa) was 0.90.

Finally, several demographic variables, such as gender, age, residency, academic year, family educational background and family income were included at the end of the surveys for sample characterization and hypothesis testing.

(34)

25

4.4. Sample Characteristics

The overall sample is composed of 1751 respondents, which includes 1073 Portuguese high school students (subsample 1) and 678 undergraduate students from the University of Porto (subsample 2).

High school respondents were from different areas of studies, however, 68.7% were from science and technology, which can explain why FEUP (76.3%), FCUP (76.1%) and ICBAS (67.5%) were the three most preferred faculties from University of Porto for high school students. Among high school respondents, 64.8% were female and aged 16.8 years old. Overall, 44.7% of the high school students were from Porto1, 19.9% from the surroundings (such as

Trofa and Paredes) and 15.4% from the Braga district. The average GPA of the high school students were 16 (out of 20) and 78% of the total high school respondents were from a public school. There was a slight difference in the GPA when comparing high school students from private schools (16.9 values) to public schools (15.5 values). Regarding parents’ education, 39.9% of the fathers had primary education compared with 32.7% of mothers with primary education. Considering higher education, 31.6% of the fathers attained this educational level versus 41.6% of the mothers. Overall, 51% of the high school students had a monthly family income up to 1.500€. Furthermore, about 96% of the high school students intend to pursue studies after finishing high school. For the remaining, the main reason to not pursue studies was the intention to start a career (69.2%). From the high school respondents that wanted to pursue studies, 51.8% intends to choose the University of Porto and 39.2% were not sure yet. The ones that do not intend to choose UP pointed out the high entrance means (38.7%) and the absence of the course program they wish (30.1%). There are several universities mentioned as alternatives to the University of Porto but the main are: University of Minho (11.5%), University of Coimbra (9.8%) and University of Aveiro (8.2%). Students from the districts of Viseu (69.4%), Braga (58.4%) and Viana do Castelo (56.3%) were more uncertain about choosing UP compared to the students from Porto (30.7%) and the surroundings (36.4%), which suggests that location

1 In this study, students from Porto are the ones from: Vila Nova de Gaia, Matosinhos, Valongo, Maia,

(35)

26 might be a key issue. See annexe III for more details about high school students demographic characteristics.

Regarding the undergraduates from UP, 76.4% were female and aged 20.9 years old. Only 34.1% were in the first year of the bachelor. The respondents were from different faculties from UP, although the ones most represented were: FPCEUP (15%), FCUP (12.7%) and FEUP (11.9%). The faculty with fewer respondents were FADEUP (2.1%). Furthermore, 14.1% studied Medicine and 12.5% studied Psychology. About UP students’ residency, 34,7% were from Porto, 19.2% from the surroundings, 8.9% from the district of Braga and 8.1% were from the district of Aveiro. Some of the UP students come from the islands (3% from Madeira and 0.2% from Azores). The average GPA of the undergraduate respondents were 14 values (out of 20). For these respondents, the University of Porto was their first choice (96%). For those who had other preferences, the alternative universities were: University of Minho (20.8%), University of Madeira (16.7%), University of Aveiro (16.7%) and University of Coimbra (16.7%). The UP students come from several different high schools, mainly from public schools (80.8%). The most represented high schools were: “Externato Ribadouro” (2.4%), “Escola Secundária da Trofa” (2.2%), “Escola Secundária Filipa de Vilhena” (2.1%), “Escola Secundária da Maia” (2.1%) and “Colégio Internato dos Carvalhos” (1.9%)”. Regarding parents’ education, 42.2% of the fathers and 34.4% of the mothers had primary education. Considering higher education, 30.7% of fathers and 39.7% of mothers attained this educational level. Overall, 51.6% of these respondents had a monthly family income up to 1.500€. See annexe IV for more details about UP undergraduate students demographic characteristics.

4.5. Data Analysis

Prior to testing the hypotheses, descriptive statistics for the main variables were computed. After, the 39 items influencing the HEI choice were subject to a factorial analysis. Principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used as the most appropriate way of reducing the data to a more parsimonious set of variables (Hair et al., 2009). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity are commonly used to guarantee the adequacy and quality of the analysis (Marôco, 2014). Since the KMO coefficient was 0.931 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p < 0.000) there was enough correlation between the variables to use factor analysis. Finally, the factors resulting from this analysis were computed

(36)

27 into new variables and some were used in the test of hypothesis. Given the large sample/subsamples size and the values of skewness (lower than 3) and kurtosis (lower than 7) for all items, the use of parametric tests was considered adequate (Marôco, 2014). These statistical analyses were performed with the software SPSS, version 21.

(37)

28

5. Results

The present study examines which factors influence the choice of UP among high school students and current UP undergraduates, and which factors distinguish these two groups. In addition, examines the predictors of UP institutional choice among potential candidates. The following sections present the main results of the statistical analysis addressing these research questions.

5.1. Which factors influence the choice of UP?

A descriptive statistical analysis of the 39 choice items was performed for the whole sample and for each of the two subsamples, to understand the influence of each item on the students’ choice of UP. Table 3 summarizes these findings.

Considering the whole sample, the factors pointed as more relevant to UP institutional choice were: quality of teaching, employability, quality of the programme, practical utility, availability of desired course programme, career prospects and reputation, with a mean rating higher than 5.5 points suggesting a mean response between considerable and great importance. For high school students, the most relevant factors were: quality of teaching, employability, quality of the programme, career opportunities and practical utility, with a mean rating higher than 6 points. Availability of the desired course programme, flexibility of the programmes, facilities, institutions’ relationship with companies, probabilities of admission, “Mostra UP”, partnerships with other institutions, exigency and quality of academic and social life were also factors with considerable importance with a mean rating between 5.5 and 6 points.

For UP undergraduate students, the most important factors were: being a public institution and quality of the programme, with a mean rating higher than 6 points. Availability of the desired course programme, practical utility, reputation, employment prospects, academic programmes quality and location were considered important with a mean rating between 5.5 and 6 points.

(38)

29 Table 3 - The influence of the 39 items in the institutional choice by sample and subsamples

As aforementioned, a PCA with varimax rotation was performed to reduce the list of 39 items to a smaller set of variables. The factor analysis produced a solution with 7-factors that together explains 57.6% of the total variance. On whole, 10 items were dropped for loading with

Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N

Teaching quality 6.36 0.97 1508 6.50 0.91 830 6.18 1.01 678

Employment prospects 6.16 1.21 1508 6.40 1.00 830 5.87 1.37 678

Academic programmes quality 6.02 1.18 1508 6.27 1.02 830 5.71 1.28 678

Practical utility 5.97 1.21 1508 6.05 1.16 830 5.87 1.26 678

Availability of desired course programme 5.90 1.31 1508 5.91 1.25 830 5.89 1.37 678

Career prospects 5.79 1.44 1508 6.25 1.04 830 5.22 1.63 678 Public institution 5.79 1.51 1508 5.39 1.65 830 6.29 1.14 678 Reputation 5.61 1.30 1508 5.40 1.38 830 5.87 1.15 678 Exigency 5.47 1.28 1508 5.53 1.22 830 5.39 1.34 678 Probabilities of admission 5.44 1.62 1508 5.62 1.50 830 5.21 1.74 678 Rankings 5.39 1.45 1508 5.45 1.39 830 5.31 1.52 678 Costs 5.26 1.62 1508 5.17 1.58 830 5.37 1.66 678 Location 5.24 1.59 1508 4.96 1.61 830 5.59 1.50 678 Facilities 5.17 1.56 1508 5.67 1.18 830 4.55 1.74 678

Flexibility of the programmes 5.15 1.57 1508 5.69 1.20 830 4.50 1.72 678

Social prestige 5.15 1.62 1508 5.15 1.58 830 5.15 1.67 678

Quality of academic and social life 5.02 1.68 1508 5.51 1.36 830 4.43 1.83 678

Partnerships with other institutions 4.96 1.75 1508 5.56 1.39 830 4.22 1.86 678

Institutions' relationship with companies 4.94 1.81 1508 5.65 1.37 830 4.08 1.91 678

Current or ex-students' opinions 4.94 1.70 1508 5.25 1.49 830 4.56 1.85 678

Tuition fees 4.91 1.76 1508 5.14 1.60 830 4.63 1.90 678 Admission criteria 4.89 1.57 1508 5.12 1.41 830 4.60 1.71 678 Proximity to home 4.85 1.88 1508 4.63 1.83 830 5.12 1.91 678 Financial aid 4.76 1.99 1508 5.33 1.61 830 4.05 2.18 678 Mostra UP 4.74 2.05 1508 5.59 1.45 830 3.70 2.20 678 Website 4.65 1.80 1508 5.05 1.52 830 4.15 1.98 678 Administrative support 4.58 1.82 1508 5.29 1.44 830 3.72 1.86 678

Worth of mouth information 4.50 1.66 1508 4.60 1.63 830 4.37 1.69 678

Proximity between students 4.45 1.76 1508 4.96 1.58 830 3.82 1.77 678

Proximity between students and professors 4.45 1.77 1508 5.11 1.51 830 3.64 1.73 678

Schools' visits 4.32 2.24 1508 5.49 1.60 830 2.89 2.07 678 Professors' opinions 4.28 1.72 1508 4.47 1.68 830 4.05 1.75 678 Prospectus 4.09 1.80 1508 4.67 1.56 830 3.38 1.83 678 Family opinions 3.96 1.80 1508 3.86 1.87 830 4.08 1.71 678 Junior University 3.95 2.19 1508 4.89 1.82 830 2.80 2.05 678 Social networks 3.63 1.76 1508 4.17 1.59 830 2.97 1.72 678

Availability of english programmes 3.59 1.92 1508 4.27 1.77 830 2.76 1.76 678

Possibility of combining study with a part-time job 3.57 2.06 1508 4.45 1.85 830 2.49 1.77 678

Friends' opinions 3.28 1.75 1508 3.37 1.78 830 3.17 1.71 678

Notes. n = 1508

(39)

30 more than one factor. Table 4 shows the seven-factor model along with the items and loadings for each factor. Each factor is composed of not less than three items, which are important to assure scales internal reliability and diminish the error (Hair et al., 2009).

The first component (Institutional Services) comprises items primarily related to services provided by the institution. The second component (Institutional Promotion) loads on the tools of information promotion. The third component (Institutional Social Facilities) included the desire for social life and facilities. The fourth component (Institutional Reputation) focuses on the reputation of the institution and quality. The fifth component (Social influence) relates to the influence of others, such as family and friends. The sixth component (Overall institutional costs) included items as costs and location, aspects related to overall institutional costs since, e.g., location and proximity to home affect the necessity of geographical mobility. The seventh component (Institutional Admission) comprises items relating course offer and admission. The items belonging to each factor were used to compute seven scales that were used in subsequent analysis. The internal reliability of these scales was calculated through the use of Cronbach’s alpha (Saunders et al., 2016). The results from this analysis indicated that five factors had coefficients higher than 0.70 (which is considered adequate), while scales 3 (Institutional Social Facilities) and 7 (Institutional Admission) had coefficients lower than 0.70 (0.67 and 0.57 respectively) indicating acceptable scaling properties.

(40)

31 Table 4 - Component matrix factor loadings for the factors influencing the selection of a HEI.

Institutional Services Intitutional Promotion Institutional Social Facilites Institutional Reputation Social Influence Institutional Costs and Location Institutional Admission Possibility of combining study with a part-time job 0.677

Administrative support 0.663

Availability of english programmes 0.662 Institutions' relationship with companies 0.643

Financial aid 0.606

Partnerships with other institutions 0.576

Prospectus 0.793 MostraUP 0.757 Social networks 0.684 Website 0.668 Junior University 0.625 Practical utility 0.612

Quality of academic and social life 0.609

Educational facilities 0.560

Reputation 0.714

Rankings 0.712

Teaching quality 0.588

Academic programmes quality 0.488

Friends' opinions 0.757

Worth of mouth information 0.711

Family opinions 0.693 Professors' opinions 0.457 Location 0.821 Proximity to home 0.764 Costs 0.610 Public institution 0.563 Probabilities of admission 0.741

Availability of desired course programme 0.614

Exigency 0.554

Rotated Component Matrixa

Items

Component

Notes: n = 1508 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Referências

Documentos relacionados

Another way of monitoring the stress magnitude in the sports scenario is through the follow-up of the hormone responses. Among the many hormones, cortisol is one of the main

The paper is organized as: Section I presents a short introduction about Intelligent Assistive Technologies, ICT, exergaming and therapy-based game for older adults with

As to tertiary education, the expenditure/student are higher because the public system of tertiary education, while using up to 21 % of the total funds spent on education,

Neste estudo evidencia-se a aplicação dessas ferramentas de pesquisa operacional, tal como a programação linear para modelagem e simulação da otimização do tempo

The patterns of change in the level of convergence (measured by the coefficient of variation - not shown) that are caused by increasing values of the three parameters analysed

La temática abordada presenta características específicas que se destacan en la literatura académica, las cuales se pueden resumir en dos: a) la generación de riqueza por

Beane (2002) assegura que a integração curricular “está preocupada em aumentar as possibilidades de integração pessoal e social através da organização de um currículo à volta de

A aula que vou apresentar, com um plano meu em anexo (Anexo F), corresponde ao plano 14 da unidade 3do manual, disponível em anexo (Anexo G), e foi das poucas aulas em